Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortjurisdictionburden of proof
jurisdictionburden of proof

Related Cases

Hernandez-Mendoza v. Gonzales
View Case »
E-L-, Matter of;
View Case »
Bedoya v. Barr
View Case »
Zhang v. Napolitano
View Case »
Quomsieh v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bernard v. Sessions

Facts

Andre Bernard, a Jamaican citizen, applied for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under CAT after being taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security. Bernard, who identified as bisexual, feared persecution and torture if returned to Jamaica due to his sexual orientation and political affiliation with the Jamaica Labour Party. His past experiences included witnessing mob violence against gay individuals and being threatened by family members. Bernard had a history of criminal convictions, including a domestic battery charge for which he claimed self-defense.

Andre Bernard, a Jamaican citizen, applied for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under CAT after being taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security.

Issue

Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the determination that Bernard's conviction for domestic battery was a particularly serious crime and whether substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral.

Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the determination that Bernard's conviction for domestic battery was a particularly serious crime and whether substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral.

Rule

The court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to review discretionary determinations regarding whether a crime is particularly serious unless a constitutional or legal issue is raised. An applicant for CAT deferral must demonstrate that they are more likely than not to be tortured in the proposed country of removal.

The court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to review discretionary determinations regarding whether a crime is particularly serious unless a constitutional or legal issue is raised.

Analysis

The court determined that it could not review the IJ's finding that Bernard's domestic battery conviction was a particularly serious crime, as Bernard did not raise a legal argument. Regarding the CAT deferral, the IJ found that Bernard's evidence did not establish a substantial likelihood of future torture based on his sexual orientation. The IJ considered Bernard's past experiences, the general conditions in Jamaica, and the lack of specific evidence that he would be targeted for extreme violence.

The court determined that it could not review the IJ's finding that Bernard's domestic battery conviction was a particularly serious crime, as Bernard did not raise a legal argument.

Conclusion

The court dismissed part of Bernard's petition and denied the remainder, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's findings and that Bernard did not meet the burden of proof for CAT deferral.

The court dismissed part of Bernard's petition and denied the remainder, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's findings and that Bernard did not meet the burden of proof for CAT deferral.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the denial of Bernard's applications for withholding of removal and CAT deferral, finding that the evidence did not support his claims.

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the denial of Bernard's applications for withholding of removal and CAT deferral, finding that the evidence did not support his claims.

You must be